Should Flurry exist at the standardized level or the LCO level?

Standard/National

LCO-only

Indifferent

Go to page

Scholar

In here, it is true. Look over the 4 pages. It's all Calgary pushing for Flurry and telling us to just accept it. I don't know how owners are voting. I only know the demeaning and belittling way one chapter's players are treating others, which is what I object to. I honestly object more to the attitude than the flurry rule itself.

Squire

The players objecting to Flurry seem to be voicing that they enjoy Alliance combat exactly as it is now. That's probably one of the reasons they started playing it. This post seems to sound like it's telling them to no longer play Alliance, and go play something else, so that this heavily contested rules proposal can be applied nationally?

There has been a response I have been tempted to make a few times in various posts, but I have refrained for various reasons. I think it is appropriate now.

While I truly agree that mechanics are a part of why some people join or continue playing a game, I also believe that most players have a lot of leeway in the mechanics they will accept. This isn't just idle speculation. I have personally witnessed at least two or three (I kinda lost track of exact count) major rewrites of the rules during my time playing this game. Heck, I was even a victim to one of those major rules changes (I had a character that specialized in memorizing Endow and Greater Endow when the rules changed to remove one of those spells and change the school for those spells from celestial to earth).

Did the change in rules cost us some players? Maybe. It is hard to identify exact reasons why players stop playing and turnover in LARP tends to be higher than for most other hobbies. But I can say for a fact that these rules changes, even when they were drastic, never resulted in significant enough losses to be more than minor blips on the radar.

In short, most players made mild adjustments to their characters and mindset, and adapted, usually pretty quickly (though I will admit to miscasting a "Shield Magic" almost two years after that spell/incant left the game). While I fully acknowledge and respect the opinions of those on this board, the people who care intensely enough to post here are basically a subset (motivated enough to post to this forum) of a subset (motivated enough to playtest), and honestly aren't really a representative sample of the average player, who is generally more apathetic about minutae of rules. At the same time, I do understand that the more invested players tend to have more individual commitment to the game, but en masse still represent a minority of commitment to the game (oddly phrased, but I hope the idea gets through).

Finally, I should note that in some cases in the past, players have joined Alliance, or rejoined after a break, specifically because our rules "caught up with the times." Again, I feel that is a more of a blip than a standard, but it does weigh into the discussion.

In here, it is true. Look over the 4 pages. It's all Calgary pushing for Flurry and telling us to just accept it. I don't know how owners are voting. I only know the demeaning and belittling way one chapter's players are treating others, which is what I object to. I honestly object more to the attitude than the flurry rule itself.

First of all, no, we are not telling anyone to "accept it". I've stated that several times. Calgary's main point is this: We have made Flurry 3 work. We have for a very long time. Other LARPS have as well. So for those that say "It won't work",we say "Yeah, it can if you give it an honest try". That's it. But then, we get "shouted down" and "talked down to" (which is one of the complaints I have read from players about the Owner's responses) like for some reason we are the only ones that can make a Flurry 3 work. This is one of the main reasons people are staying away from these forums in droves. They have no interest in constantly arguing with other players/chapters.

When another player has a dissenting opinion (on ANY topic, not just Flurry) they are just shouted down. So most of my chapter players have no interest in "defending" their point of view and participating in these forums anymore. It is sad because it just devolves into a 2.0 "hatefest" and these forums have pretty much become toxic. For any new player to try to read over these forums is a disservice to Alliance as a whole. All they read is bitterness and anger.

There are no true debates. There are no expressing of opinions. Just people so set in their ways that they refuse to listen to any other view. Again. It has just become toxic. This is why the Rules Theory and the Rules forum were shut down a couple years back.

I am glad that there are some threads trying to constructively address issues with certain aspects of 2.0. To those players I say "Thank You".

Matt and Chris are doing their best to moderate this with the Paladins, but I fear the levels of vitriol are just so great at the moment that everyone needs to just step away for a few days.

Baron

In here, it is true. Look over the 4 pages. It's all Calgary pushing for Flurry and telling us to just accept it. I don't know how owners are voting. I only know the demeaning and belittling way one chapter's players are treating others, which is what I object to. I honestly object more to the attitude than the flurry rule itself.

To me, the Calgary players are saying, "Hey, it's not that bad. We use it and we don't have a problem with it!" I think they are trying to alleviate our concerns, I do not think they are trying to be intentionally "belitting" or "demeaning". Obviously, I could be wrong, but that's how I've read their posts and none of them have come across as described to me.

That said, I appreciate their view, but for me, I feel it won't be fun for me in part because I already go out of my way to be courteous to people with whom I am fighting, and I don't want to have to worry about breaking this rule in part because it is pretty vague in its description.

I am at a point in my skill level that I can pay attention to more things going on around me than just the Foe in front of me. I can watch out for my opponent's OOG health while still fighting reasonably fast. I also very, very, very rarely get so caught up in combat/the-moment that I can't take off my character's "Hat" and be "Adam" again. I am under enough control that if I accidentally hit someone in the head because they ducked when I thought they wouldn't, I'm not swinging so fast and so out of control that I can immediately see that I hit them in a bad spot and I instantly stop and make sure they are okay. I genuinely don't understand how people can just keep swinging/attacking when someone has been hurt or hit by an errant shot in a sensitive spot.

To some degree, I kinda take this as a personal chastisement because it suggests that I do not already fight safely, and therefore this rule needs to be implemented. As I've said in the recent past, I think better Marshaling of existing rules (have to be able to understand verbals, can only attack once per second at most, police machine gunning better, etc.) would go a LONG way toward fixing the issues that Flurry is seemingly meant to fix.

While I fully acknowledge and respect the opinions of those on this board, the people who care intensely enough to post here are basically a subset (motivated enough to post to this forum) of a subset (motivated enough to playtest), and honestly aren't really a representative sample of the average player, who is generally more apathetic about minutae of rules. At the same time, I do understand that the more invested players tend to have more individual commitment to the game, but en masse still represent a minority of commitment to the game (oddly phrased, but I hope the idea gets through).

I generally agree with your points here, Mike. I will say that I tend to look at these rules from the perspective of "If I were still Head of Plot, what would my concerns be about these rules..." in addition to being a player of a level 40+ Fighter that played from Level 1 with no magic items.

I realize that this perspective is limited in some ways, and skewed in others, but I feel that my successes as a Plot person and HoP in terms of attendance and player retention (both PC and NPC) should speak positively for my way of viewing certain things, in particular the Plot/scaling side of things. I try to look at things from multiple perspectives, anyway.

My point is that I agree with you that we can't put TOO much weight behind the opinions expressed here, but they certainly shouldn't be dismissed out of hand using the argument of "they are just a small sample size" either. There's a LOT of experience behind the majority of the posts here, yourself included! I just think it would be a poor decision to utterly ignore it or give it less weight than it deserves.

Last edited: Jun 19, 2017

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

Newbie

One of the things I keep seeing is people pointing out that the Flurry 3 rules as written do not support the positive impact you see it bringing to the game. I think if we worked together to get a better definition it might bring more people together in support of the rule. But as it is written right now it doesn't appear to solve much of anything, that is what a lot of people are pointing out, as well as what the true goal is behind Flurry 3, but nobody from the pro-flurry 3 side of things are choosing to address these things, and the message is becoming muddied because those who are pro-flurry 3 are not showing a clear and shared answer. Because of that you are seeing more and more people taking a harder stance against what they see is unclear, undefined, and in their opinion unnecessary rules being pushed upon them.

Artisan

I think I can speak for a large number of us when I say that the reason that arguments have become so heated here and we are so quick to voice our opposition, passionately at times is because the game we love and have played for years is being usurped by an unproven rules system that clearly has severe balance issues and lacks any meaningful testing. We are at our wits end and no longer know how to respond because we've been backed into a corner.

The 2.0 rules were handed down from owners and ARC, there was no player input that went into the entire creation process.

The rules that we have been given to test are incomplete, and have not made it through an intense screening process.

Despite calls for transparency, play test feedback has been kept secret. We simply have to trust that the numbers we see are accurate, and more importantly a fair representation of the game as a whole, and not just one or two chapters who make up the overwhelming majority of play testers.

We have difficulty even getting people to come out for play tests because there are so many changes, very little of it is intuitive, and you need to spend a significant amount of time reading the new rules, creating a new character, converting magic items, etc before you can play test. Then there is no official response to submitted feedback, leaving play testers feeling like they wasted their time. Our play testers feel marginalized.

We are told to just accept these rules at face value. When we find and point out flaws in design, such criticism is unwanted and unwarranted unless it is sent as feedback via the play test form (this has changed recently with owners like Kasuni asking for input here).

Those who are unhappy with the new rules have tried to go through the official process of play testing and feedback and it clearly isn't working. The vast majority of changes have passed in each round of play testing and even those that seemingly don't just end up included in the next round of play testing again. This forum is the only place that we have where we can make our voices heard. Come to find out, most of the people in this forum agree with us. Yet we're told we're wrong anyway and not a representative sample of Alliance as a whole. Of course we're going to get defensive and question that logic.

I have said it before and I will say it again. It should not be our job as players to prove to the owners and ARC that these new rules are broken and should be reworked/discarded. Instead the onus should lie on the owners and ARC to convince us as players that any changes made were absolutely necessary to improve the quality and health of the game, and that those changes are a clear and marked improvement, and not just change for the sake of change. We know 1.3 works despite its flaws, we've all played it. We have no idea if 2.0 works except for a single chapter who seems to have a very different culture than many of the other chapters represented here, and whose owner seems very invested in making sure that these rules pass. What works for you may not work for us.

So forgive us if we are short, or vehemently defend our opinions. We have been given a raw deal in this thing so far, our feedback up until now seems to have been unheard, and we are pissed off about it, and rightfully so.

Thorgrim Gravelcracker "the Unquenched"son of Hanson, the Prince-forger, son of Modi, son of Radric, son of Caleb, son of Delthain, son of Belswain
Commander of the Baronial armies of Warchester
Purveyor of smoked meats and strong ales

Baron

Respectfully:
I don't personally know all of the members of ARC, nor all of the owners, but I can say that I have personally seen 7+ owners playing a PC and at least 2 members of ARC, one of which I know plays regularly. I think there is room to be both a Player and an Owner.

That said, I haven't been particularly happy with the whole process either, but I also know that this project has been in the works for, I think, 4-5 years at this point. They spend multiple years working on this before it ever was made public. My hope is that they will take their time on pulling the trigger for 2.0 and that they make sure that what is there is what they actually want as a final product.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

I want to reiterate something about this bit of Cory's post. Things go into Playtesting for two reasons:

#1. The Owners think it's likely good for the game and vote to put it in. Playtesting is intended to find major unforseen issues and tweak/tune the thing.

#2. The Owners aren't sure but think there's a possibility it may be good for the game. Playtesting is intended to find if the thing is worth putting in at all or not.

As an example, "bigger shields" definitely fell under the #2 category while "remove Web" definitely fell under the #1 category.

Here's the thing, though - in both cases, and especially the second, playtesters need to be willing to try what's in the packet with an open mind and give it an honest shot. Maybe your initial reaction from reading the packet is only reinforced by actually playtesting. Maybe your initial reaction turns out to be different when the rule actually comes out on the field. But unless you approach items in the packet with an open mind, you're doing them a disservice. That's why, for the Feedback Form, we request that players have actually attended a Playtest to submit the form.

We can't know whether, for example, Flurry is worth putting in on a National scale without people actually trying it. I am 100% certain that some folks have posted on this thread based on their initial read without actually trying it with an open mind. In the prior round where it was added as an A/B option, some Playtests appeared to have been run almost entirely in just one mode - which doesn't really give us good data on what we should do. Thus the Owner choice to ask that it be included as mandatory for all of the 0.9 Playtests - because people have *not* been giving it an honest, open-minded try.

Personally (not in an official capacity!), I'll say that I don't think that Flurry rules fit with Alliance very well (I do really like them in other LARPs that are built with Flurry in place from the ground up). But I also acknowledge that I haven't attended a 0.9 playtest yet and I need to do so to see if my preconceived notion is right. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But until I do so, and give it an honest shot, I'm not going to comment here about my preconceived notions because they might be wrong and I want to speak with an informed opinion when I do so.

For those who haven't tried Flurry, I really think you'd do yourselves and the process a huge deal of good to really, honestly approach it with an open mind and try it out for a few hours (which is specifically why the Owners asked for it to be included as mandatory in this Playtest round, instead of optional as in a prior round). Maybe it will grow on you, maybe it won't, but at least you'll have a firm ground for your view and Feedback Form submission.

Newbie

Having been maniacally fighting with hard weapons in Slavic LARPs for over a decade I ended up moving to Calgary and having to tone down my style significantly - featherweight weapon, no hooking, no grappling, touch blocks, flurry. Took about three events to get in the gear. Having fought quite a bit both as PC and NPC since then I'll say Flurry actually makes more sense than some of the other rules and since resetting options include switching to another target - doesn't affect the flow at all when fighting more than one target. Also if your skill allows you to make your swings count - you do not lose anything from following the rule. Yes it gives a slight edge to spellcasters in melee, but if you are any good and in melee with a spellcaster - they will need it.
The main reason for interpreting the rule is same as with touch blocks and with no hooking, so that players can be everything they cannot be. Kinda theme of this LARP, no?

Newbie

I just double checked the Telus video they did at our chapter, but some of the more intense one on one combat we did for the cameras that day didn't make the final cut. Didn't have a clear bit I could use to show you what our flurry looks like with practice, that this pause really can be merely a second long.. and comes naturally, with the common sportsmanship we all have, often, I'll bet, likely put in practice without giving it a second thought. Like mentioned, the mini holds, and where people stop from backing you into danger, or an arm over head to clarify, it's a quick pause. I've personally never counted feints as in the 3 count, or too many packets from the same person.. as mentioned, archery, there is a natural pause between, with the motions required..Casting, takes time, a proper "rip from" call is not affected, as one player casts the bind / web, and another jumps in with "killing blow".. We're not in it to ruin anyone's game, and perhaps we're a little more accepting of this rule when we know some of our players just need that extra second or two.. ( One month after my own surgery, I certainly liked it) ... for various reasons, some personal, some physical. On paper, it covers butts, but.. whos to say there isn't a mutually agreed gorgeous day for a great battle exception? I know I'm guilty on occasion. I know who to ask in my chapter, and who simply can't.

Baron

I would like to point out that this is specifically NOT stated nor specified in the rule as it is currently written. This is definitely not obvious. If this is the case, it certainly needs to be added to the rule as-written.

It doesn't say you can reset your 3 attacks count by switching targets. Its only guidance is "wait for defenses to be called and allow for footing reset".

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

Scholar

"You can attack multiple opponents 3 times each. Attack one, then switch your target and attack 3 more times, rinse and repeat. It's usually the monsters that are ganged up on. So having each opponent only throwing a few attacks and then letting off allows the NPC time to process, respond and continue. "

Newbie

"You can attack multiple opponents 3 times each. Attack one, then switch your target and attack 3 more times, rinse and repeat. It's usually the monsters that are ganged up on. So having each opponent only throwing a few attacks and then letting off allows the NPC time to process, respond and continue. "

aha, there we go..nice catch. clarification..yes, we do switch targets. I believe that also was a question elsewhere too..scenario then, : . So Jax hits 3 on me, 3 on Cipher, 3 on me again.. while I hit 3 on Jax, pause, Cipher hits his 3,.. and as long as we don't have 3 others joining in on Jax, we can overlap. But we both pause after our own 3. Fun playing Cat and mouse this way. ( besides, I am a rogue, so backing off until the backside is a target again very good idea . Jax is fast.. very fast. I feel lucky getting in one before I hightail out )

Knight

"You can attack multiple opponents 3 times each. Attack one, then switch your target and attack 3 more times, rinse and repeat. It's usually the monsters that are ganged up on. So having each opponent only throwing a few attacks and then letting off allows the NPC time to process, respond and continue. "

As I pointed out back on the first page, Mythics version of flurry does not line up with what the stated rules are at all.

This is what is listed in the 2.0 doc

For this Playtest, we’re asking all Playtesters to use a Flurry rule for all attacks (weapon and packet both). This is intended as a constant change to Alliance combat in which players take no more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks) before pausing and resetting their combat stance. All players involved in a combat should adhere to this rule.

There is no mention of changing targets, pace of attacks, etc that resets your flurry count.